Provooative would be one word. Daft would be another 🙂

Let’s not beging to start to turn things around because someone on the internet called things ‘daft’.

I notice this all the time – especially with Reeves and Starmer – they lack substance and detail. Simply because no one appears to actually want to fix anything for fear of upsetting the current shit-show, and because there is no political will.

Just changing tack slightly.

https://x.com/alexnunns/status/1770783028299595960?s=20

This breed of politician …

I loved my old squelchy open bath Marzocchis!!

RCT3is were my plushest ever ride

“Money. It would be very easy for the UK govt to waive tax for specific sectors to incentivise people to come here.”

What do you think would be the political and social consequences of hiring a large number of foreigners to live and work in the UK on temporary visas while paying zero tax? Do you think it would create a more cohesive, integrated and equitable society?

I notice this all the time – especially with Reeves and Starmer

Worst Vic & Bob tribute act ever

Do you think it would create a more cohesive, integrated and equitable society?

See that lack of imagination I was talking about up the thread? I think eliminating waiting lists, providing people with dentists and enabling them to see their GP would defuse the immigration problem by removing one of the issues the far right use to stoke hatred. As with anything in a market economy, if you have the money, you can buy solutions, and money is not a problem.

I see that Starmer has jumped on the bandwagon about the new England football kit. I think it’s great that he’s focusing on the important issues of the day, and not pandering to dickheads.

I see that Starmer has jumped on the bandwagon about the new England football kit. I think it’s great that he’s focusing on the important issues of the day, and not pandering to dickheads.

Unfortunately there’s no way to win that game.

– Ignore it and he’s unpatriotic and out of touch with the common man

– Talk about it and he’s wasting time on unimportant things

He could of course have just said it is a representation of the England flag in a similar way the Union flag was represented in 2012 and was just a visual image on the back of a jersey and not the actual flag which would be on the front chest if anywhere so let’s not get too excited about it as we have much more important things to deal with.

I see that Starmer has jumped on the bandwagon about the new England football kit

He’s a fully signed up gooner eng-er-lan type, as evidenced by his wearing of a Stone Island top in an interview once. Any football hooligan will know that displaying ‘the badge’ is an overt sign of solidarity with that community so it’s no surprise he’s piled on the St George’s flag debate at the first opportunity. He didn’t jump on the bandwagon, he was already the driver.

“And the flag is used by everybody, it’s unifying, it doesn’t need to change. We just need to be proud of it. So I think they should just reconsider this and change it back. I’m not even sure they can properly explain why they thought they needed to change in the first place. They could also reduce the price of the shirts.”

If that’s outrage… then he’s even dull and overly mild mannered when he’s outraged.

Strip looks very traditional to me… you need to be close enough to kiss a player on the neck to see this small detail… really don’t see why anyone would care in the slightest about it. The price of the replicas is bonkers though.

As for Starmer commenting on football… at least he’s genuinely interested in the sport. Unlike so many other politicians who want to be seen to be associated with it. For me, it’s just something else that adds to his ordinary boringness though. I’d rather he was into growing fruit and veg down the allotment.

https://twitter.com/broseph_stalin/status/1771217380145815831?t=UsgQnMmy_IuAO0Os0ZgxLw&s=19

Apart from the obvious point here can someone much more knowledgeable explain this to me because some expert on STW said Britain had nothing to do with arming Israel?

[Quote]See that lack of imagination I was talking about up the thread[/quote]
It’s not imaginative to just “import” skilled foreigners (as if they were commodities) to fill gaps in the UK labour market and ignore the consequences. That’s exactly what’s been done since 1945 and what got us here. We need to solve the structural problems and move the people already here into higher value roles – not just ponce off foreign countries’ education and public health services.

[Quote]He’s a fully signed up gooner eng-er-lan type,[/quote]
Loving the reinvention of Starmer as a casual that’ll stamp on a 19 year old’s legs outside a pub near Elland Rd after 15 Holsten Pils on the train up from Kings Cross. Makes a change from him being called the most boring, unambitious middle manager on the planet.

Apart from the obvious point here…

What is the obvious point? I am trying to figure out whether the threat to stop arms exports to Israel is likely to be primarily motivated by genuine humanitarian concerns, or whether it is an attempt by ministers to cover their arses, in the event of them being taken to court for arming a country which they know is committing war crimes with the supplied weapons .

Obviously the latter doesn’t concern Starmer – he cannot be prosecuted for not calling on the UK government to stop arms export licences to Israel.

Apart from the obvious point here…

That the headline is making.

It’s not imaginative to just “import” skilled foreigners (as if they were commodities) to fill gaps in the UK labour market and ignore the consequences. 

I never claimed it was imaginative, I also said it was a short term plan while the longer term plan (actually filling the gaps in the UK Labour Market with training, incentives, decent wages, new buildings, process changes etc,. where required).  When the longer term plan is complete (n years) then the import of labour stops as the n years Visa are running out.

So would you wait 5-10 years before seeing any improvements or would you rather see something in a year?

(you don’t need to answer that one)

@kerley it’s not about what you want but rather what is realistic.

I work for a company many orders of magnitude smaller than the NHS, recruitment for a couple of positions can take 3 months and that’s just from the ad going out. Then there’s the basic training that can take up to a year just to be allowed to work on your own without mentorship. For the sort of drive you’re talking about you’re probably talking the guts of a year minimum just to plan for it never mind start the actual process.

It’s not just nurses that’s needed, it’s admin staff (that would allow medical staff to actually do medical things), estate staff (if the NHS wasn’t doing what it did it would have been shut down by the HSE years ago) and probably loads more folk behind the scenes.

I’d say you’re not going to start seeing the benefits before 3-4 years as the organisation adapts and gets used to it’s new norm. It’s doable, it’s noticeable within a term but a year is just completely unrealistic.

And I wouldn’t be buggering about with anything else until the main body is sorted (or at least significantly improved), that’s just asking for trouble. Second term goals.

“So would you wait 5-10 years before seeing any improvements or would you rather see something in a year?”

A hospital has a 30 year lifespan and they’re unbelievably complicated buildings. In the dialysis unit near me, the wiring and gas piping for each bed had to be designed on a computer before any physical works could begin. This is going to shock you, but actually there are not many people in the world that have those design skills and they’re busy as hell – and that’s just one tiny element of designing and building a hospital.

You seem to be one of these “stuff and nonsense” types that thinks that all that is required is to have a gästarbeiter in a bulldozer pushing earth around begin work, and then everything else follows. This is the Boris Johnson approach that involves him getting photographed in a high viz vest and then buggering off. Actually, it’s not the case that everyone else is slow and unimaginative, and that you’re the visionary. It’s that some of this stuff is very, very complicated and takes time.

There are some people who get stuff done and others who just put up excuses.  I will leave it at that.

Let’s not improve things because someone on the internet said it’s going to be tough.

What hell kind of logic is this?

Do you understand how an economy expands. It uses residual labour and resources that could be directed away from less important private projects to more necessary infrastructure projects.

The only limitation are resources – granted.

As long as we’re not at full employment then this can be done without crowding out the private sector. Of course there are hurdles.

Things are so far behind there needs to be a huge push in the right direction which will have a positive benefit anyway.

Let’s not improve things because someone on the internet said it’s going to be tough.

Pretty sure they want to improve things, but to be realistic on the timescales for achieving the aims.

I’ve known two things about government over time, first is if they try to do something fast it invariably costs a lot more, or if they try to ‘streamline’ the timescales without budgeting for it, they end up late and over budget, even though it arrives in a timescale that was originally planned, and the government department get a kicking, which tends to mean the hierarchy take it out on those who do the work, further demoralising them and making them leave.

There are some people who get stuff done and others who just put up excuses.

You sound like some the managers I’ve had over the years, we need to do something, anything now! Results lots of pissed off people, wasted resources and we’re worse off than when we started. This is the Tory way, lots of noise and ignore the detail and nothing delivered.

Meanwhile those of us who actually understand how things work quietly get on with the job doing the boring hard miles and actually make positive sustainable improvements.

Meanwhile those of us who actually understand how things work quietly get on with the job doing the boring hard miles and actually make positive sustainable improvements.

No one is claiming it’s easy, quite the opposite. But the current narrative coming from mainstream parties is that it’s unaffordable which is total bollocks. What’s worse? Trying to do something and failing, or not bothering at all?

“Let’s not improve things because someone on the internet said it’s going to be tough.”

FFS, absolutely no one has said this apart from you, because it doesn’t fit your preferred narrative.

We need to push for improvements as quickly as we can – that involves planning, recruitment, training, resources, msterials and all of those require time to make sure the money we’re throwing at it is not wasted getting carried away and **** up.

Let’s not improve things because someone on the internet said it’s going to be tough.

FFS, absolutely no one has said this apart from you

Which I assume is why it wasn’t offered as an actual quote. I believe that the correct term is ‘paraphrasing’.

Which in relation to what was being said is quite reasonable imo. There seems to be an attitude by some that it better not to bother that to try and then fail.

What’s worse? Trying to do something and failing, or not bothering at all?

According to our very likely next Secretary of State for Health trying to do something and failing is worse than not bothering at all.

In fact he goes as far as saying that no hope is better than false hope. Yup, he is indeed offering us a large dollop of “no hope”. And apparently we should be grateful for that.

“False hope is worse than no hope. Labour won’t make promises it can’t keep”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/09/labour-promises-tory-mismanagement-public-finances

I particularly liked the last paragraph in that article:

“Imagine Britain leading the G7 with the highest sustained economic growth, with a million more jobs in green energy”

After making the case of not making promises that might not be delivered he then offers his readers the sunlit uplands. How on earth can he guarantee that the other six G7 countries will perform worse than the UK under a Labour government?

And where are those “million more jobs in green energy” going to come from? Since writing that piece Starmer and Reeves have abandoned the hope they temporarily gave us with their £28bn green pledge. In fact it turned out to be nothing more than false hope.

Streeting concludes his piece with:

A platform you can trust us to deliver

In reality less than 12 months later you cannot even trust what he actually wrote in that article.

“Let’s not improve things because someone on the internet said it’s going to be tough.

What hell kind of logic is this?”

Dunno, you might get an answer if you tag the person who actually said that because from here it all looks like a leap on your part.

Nobody is saying do nothing, what people are saying is that expecting meaningful results for that specific example within a year is daft.

“There are some people who get stuff done and others who just put up excuses. I will leave it at that.”

Jesus wept, Douglas Renham was parody ffs…

Sigh – we’ve already got no hope.

I’m glad we’ve decided to not bother – just let the wealthy have their cake then. No point moaning about the Tories if there’s no point then.

False hope is worse than no hope. Labour won’t make promises it can’t keep

Spot on.

And where are those “million more jobs in green energy” going to come from?

The switch to renewables by 2030, and improving our housing stock and business processes.

I’d prefer more of those jobs to be in the public than private sector through much higher state investment, but the pushing of these green issues with policy will create them anyway.

I’m glad we’ve decided to not bother

Who said that? You’ve decided it’s your way or no way.

False hope is worse than no hope. Labour won’t make promises it can’t keep

Spot on.

If you agree with that claim by Streeting then perhaps you can explain why he is talking about Britian leading the G7 with the highest sustained economic growth, whilst describing it as “a platform you can trust us to deliver”.

He cannot not possibly know that a Labour government will deliver the highest sustained economic growth of the G7.

And if they don’t it will have turned out to have been a “false hope”. Streeting doesn’t even bother sticking to his own “don’t offer false hope” mantra.

If no hope is better than false hope, as Streeting boldly claims, surely he should be trumpeting the fact that it is very unlikely that under a Labour government that the UK will have the highest sustained economic growth of the G7?

Spot on.

And that is why we have a politics which delivers  crumbling public services and next to nothing for normal people. If those of us who claim to hate what the tories stand for can’t summon the will to to do better then there’s no point. Depressing.

Again, no one is saying they don’t want, and expect, better… except the same naysayers over and over again looking to blame Labour for the state the country has become under the Tories. And these same people are already looking to blame Labour for how long it is going to take to fix the damage… before they are even in government… they might not even make it into government! The ship will take time to turn around once/if the Conservatives are moved on… promising the economy and society can change direction on a sixpence would be a mistake… for all the reasons already outlined.

except the same naysayers over and over again looking to blame Labour for the state the country has become under the Tories.

Did you write that nonsense with a straight face? No one has blamed “Labour for the state the country has become under the Tories”. What a truly ridiculous claim.

And the “naysayers” are those who have given up and are claiming that Labour cannot be expected to make a very significant difference – which is all that anyone is asking for.

Not silly claims about the highest sustained economic growth of the G7. something which is just as likely unachievable as achievable and is directly linked to how well other G7 countries perform – being 3rd if they all perform really well will be great, being first if they all perform really badly not so much.

And yet over and over again the same couple of individuals will back whatever Starmer says, even if it is the complete opposite to what he said the previous month, and which they also totally supported.

For them we have in Starmer the perfect politician who never says anything wrong. Or so it would appear.

And yet over and over again the same couple of individuals will back whatever Starmer says, even if it is the complete opposite to what he said the previous month, and which they also totally supported.

Simple maths puts them in their place.

Ms Reeves said Labour would “not waver from strong fiscal rules”, and it would continue with the Conservative’s current rule that public debt must be falling as a share of the economy by the fifth year of an official forecast.

Reduce the public ‘debt’ you reduce the government’s contribution to the economy. Bye bye growth, bye bye state investment and bye bye any semblance of improvement.

That’s called not even having a go.

But somehow they will spin that as a good thing. Let’s get behind Reeves and Starmer because the ace in their pack is they’re not going to do anything at all.

Genius thinking that and something to get behind.

It will totally fall apart very quickly.

And these same people are already looking to blame Labour for how long it is going to take to fix the damage

You are missing the point spectacularly although not unexpected.

From day 1 they will be held accountable and we will be told that it is all down to them.

That they are binding themselves to act like the tories wont help them. The tories will deny all knowledge just like they complain about deregulation resulting in a lot of the problems in 2008 despite their only issue at the time is the deregulation wasnt extreme enough.

They have a limited time to deliver change.

If they dont then people will be looking elsewhere and the populist right, despite causing most of the damage, will be happy to take advantage.

They have to provide a clear cut line between them and the tories. Serving the centrists vs everyone else will just help the populist line of they are all the same.

So in 2029 we will be screwed.

“I’m glad we’ve decided to not bother”

Direct quote please, put up or shut up.

Labour says it will stick with workers’ rights plans despite Mandelson remarks

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/24/labour-stick-with-workers-rights-plans-despite-peter-mandelson-remarks

“Keir Starmer’s new deal for working people would give employees more rights such as protections against unfair dismissal, sick pay and parental leave from day one but many business groups are lobbying to water it down.”

Excellent news – both the proposed employee enhanced rights and the fact that Starmer has chosen to ignore the Prince of Darkness.

How any member of the Labour Party can claim that it is acceptable to unfairly dismiss someone in the first two years of their employment is beyond me.

Prince of Darkness.

How any member of the Labour Party can claim that it is acceptable to unfairly dismiss someone in the first two years of their employment is beyond me.

I think you answered your own question there.

Rupert Soames, the new president of the CBI, told the FT last month that the UK needed to avoid a “European model” of employment rights and resist excessive regulation that undermined productivity in order to rediscover its competitiveness.

God forbid we do anything they do. It’s not really anything new though is it? It’s just rewinding the clock with a little extra (day 1 as opposed to 2 months). Have they actually come out and said that though? Restoring rather than making something new.

Ed Miliband still exists… popping up today to talk about the new publicly owned power generation company… and the 2030 goal for fossil fuel free electricity generation…

[ I’m listening to PM on Radio4… presume he’s doing the rounds though ]